Romney Backs Off of 47% Comments

“I meant that 47% will vote for Obama because they’re minorities. Not better? Ok, let me try again” says GOP nominee

By Martin Belafonte

Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney distanced himself from his comments that 47% of the electorate is “entitled” and will vote for Barack Obama no matter what today. The nominee came under fire this week when a recording of a closed-door fundraiser leaked to the press. The recording confirmed many Americans’ fears that Romney cares little for the working class.

At a press conference today, Romney tried to clarify his remarks. “See, I think everyone is taking that tape out of context,” he told reporters at a campaign stop in Clearwater, Florida. “When I said that 47% of the people will vote for Obama no matter what, I wasn’t talking about white people. I meant that 47% will vote for Obama because they’re minorities. Not better? OK, let me try again.”

As the press corps stared stone-faced back at the candidate, his normally unflappable demeanor appeared notably flapped. “Wow, more coloreds in this press group than I remembered. Haha. Did I say coloreds? I was joking. You know what a joker the MIttster is. Romney 2012! You don’t have to print any of this, you know.”

“I think people are getting the wrong idea. When I talk about the 47%, I am not talking about the middle class. In fact, I am talking about poor people who are trying to get rid of the middle class. That’s right, they’re trying to take it over! Are we going to let that happen?” Romney asked the increasingly hostile audience.

Romney continued, “Look, I think you’re getting the wrong idea about me. It is simple mathematics. Think of America as a pie. Now, if I called down to my cook and asked him to bake me a delicious acai berry and truffle oil pie and cut me a slice that represented Americans who don’t pay taxes, that would be a big slice! I would have to call my butler up to wrap up the part I couldn’t finish. Now that wouldn’t be very considerate of me, would it? And that’s the point I have been trying to make all along.”

“The part I just do not understand for one gosh darn minute is when people say that I‘m out of touch. It’s just not true! I put my magic underwear on one leg at a time just like the rest of you. I connect with the American people. For example, I love country music. Last week, I co-sponsored the Best Male Artist award at the CMAs. I couldn’t have been happier when Blake Shelton won the Old Spice Love Your Smelf-Romney 2012 Male Artist of the Year Award. I was so happy for him that I had the president of his recording company give me his info so I could have one of my people send him a congratulatory message on My Space. He owed me a favor anyway- I saved the company from bankruptcy after Napster was invented by firing all of their local distributors.”

“But I am getting off on a tangent. What is important is that the American people know that I connect with them and I still care about a slight majority of them.”

When asked for comment, President Obama was busy cackling and rolling a blunt. 

Unbalanced, Once-Famous Starlet Agrees to Become Judge on Floundering Televised Singing Competition

A Press Release Template for the Annual Revolving Door of Reality Judges

HOLLYWOOD- Kevin Goldsmith, President of a [major television network], announced today that the network had reached an agreement with [the pop diva] to become a judge on its [reality singing show]. Goldsmith said he believes that, “everyone deserves a second-chance,” and that he feels that the troubled star has put her checkered past behind her.

The multiplatinum singer did not appear at the press conference, but she briefly addressed reporters through a conference call, telling them that she was excited for the opportunity to work with such a popular franchise. “Yay! I am so thrilled to be joining [the show]!” she told reporters during her brief remarks. She did not confirm that [her predecessor] would be leaving the show to star in a remake of [a popular 1980s romantic comedy], but observers felt that the newest addition to the panel meant that the writing was on the wall.

[The singer's] 2010 mugshot after a DUI arrest.
All charges were dropped.

The singer’s representatives said that the show will offer her a chance at redemption after several years of professional missteps. In 2009, she had a well-publicized meltdown in a hotel lobby that caused many of her fans to question her psychological well-being. In 2010, she had to cancel a leg of her European tour due to exhaustion and dehydration, though many journalists speculated that she may have been dealing with a drug problem behind the scenes.

Nonetheless, the partnership could be a launching pad for both parties. [The show], which used to enjoy blockbuster ratings, saw its market share dip substantially last season after the departure of two of its long-time hosts. With more competition than ever, producers felt they had to make a splash. The addition of [the fiery diva] will certainly make headlines, but it remains to be seen whether she will have the on-air chemistry with the other judges that will draw viewers to the show.

[The show] will not be [the singer’s] first foray into reality television. Many viewers will remember the star’s short-lived foray into the genre that followed her during the lead-up to her wedding to [egocentric professional athlete]. The show suffered through abysmal ratings, and was canceled after the engagement broke off months before the couple exchanged nuptials.

Many of the diva’s most ardent fans were thrilled with the news that she would be joining the show in the fall, including [the show’s androgynous, bubbly host].  Shortly after the news broke, he took to Twitter, saying: “Super pumped to hear [singer] is joining us in the fall!!!!” and “Luv u and can’t wait to C you on set!!! Going 2 b Epic!!”

Terms of the star’s contract were not released, but there were rumors that she may be compensated as much as $15 million for her first year, with escalators in salary if she is asked to come back for future seasons. The salary does not account for her famous rider, which includes a request for brand new slippers, three bottles of Dom Perignon champagne, and 144 chocolate-dipped strawberries in her dressing room after every show. Also, the show promises to give [the singer] free publicity for her new album “[synonym for redemption],” due out early next year.

Colombian Prostitute-Gate: What Really Happened?

Colombian Prostitute-Gate: What Really Happened?

The Obama administration and the Secret Service came under fire this week following the revelation that several Secret Service agents visited a harem while on official duty in Colombia. Shockingly, the agents betrayed the primary implication of their agency’s name by disclosing their identity and sharing confidential information with the prostitutes. While prostitution is legal in Colombia, many have said that the President’s personal security team ought to adhere to a higher standard of decorum than “When in Rome.” Additionally, the story became public when one of the agents refused to pay a prostitute what she said he owed her, offering $50 instead of $250.

Revealing secret identities? Haggling over prices? That doesn’t sound like the Secret Service so proudly depicted on television and in the movies. When I heard this story, my antennae shot up, and the results of my investigation may shock you.

A confidential source revealed to me that Secret Service agents indeed visited the brothel on the date in question. In fact, it is not uncommon for agents to visit brothels, drink to excess, or even dabble in whatever recreational drugs are available in a given area. They perform a stressful job, and there has long been an unspoken understanding that they are allowed to let loose while canvassing before the President’s official visit commences. The agents understand that they have a good deal, and like any beneficiary of great generosity, they know better than to look a gift horse in the mouth. The agents are discrete by trade, and would never let it slip that they are on an assignment, and they would certainly never start the sort of commotion associated with a price dispute.

Clint Eastwood's character from In the Line of Fire would be ashamed.

Unfortunately, a perfect storm conspired against the Secret Service in this case. The same week that the Secret Service was preparing for President Obama’s trip to Colombia, two graduate students from the University of Virginia’s Latin American Studies PHD program were taking a research-oriented spring break trip to Colombia. The students, Myles Hobson, 27 , and Jeremy Little, 28, happened to visit the same brothel as the Secret Service agents, and happened to be in the adjacent rooms. Moreover, the impish duo, ashamed to explain their actual occupation to the escorts, stated that they were undercover Secret Service agents. It may seem implausible that two civilians would present themselves as Secret Service agents to foreign prostitutes, but “Secret Service agent” is actually the third most common fantasy profession chosen by pathetic American men trying to impress foreign prostitutes, right after “Air Force Pilot” and “Racecar Driver.”

Typically, housing actual Secret Service agents and imposter Secret Service agents in adjacent rooms would not pose a problem, but the situation escalated when the graduate students realized they did not have enough money to pay the high-class escorts. Due to their academic knowledge of Colombia, the students assumed that the exchange rate would translate into a relatively affordable price for the prostitutes. What they didn’t realize was that the market for high-class prostitutes is dominated by foreign dignitaries and wealthy businessmen, so the prevailing exchange rate does not deflate the cost. An argument ensued, and when the actual Secret Service agents heard the words “Secret Service” being yelled through the walls, they assumed they were under attack.

At that point, the actual agents formulated a plan to infiltrate the adjoining room. They instructed their prostitutes to knock on the door then followed them into the room with guns drawn. When the situation was explained to them, they paid off the difference in cost and quickly left the hotel. Unluckily, due to Colombia’s high rate of kidnapping, the hotel has state-of-the-art security cameras near all of the exits that captured footage of them leaving the building. Additionally, the security guard who had been called by the students’ prostitutes before the actual agents arrived finally showed up and started questioning the students about what happened [Ed. Note: Colombian security guards are famous for being paragons of thoroughness and integrity]. Since they had already signed the hotel’s registry and listed “Secret Service” under their occupation, the guard wrote in his report that two Secret Service agents had a price dispute with two of their prostitutes.

When word of the disturbance got back to the United States, the security camera footage was enough proof to convince Congressman Darrel Issa that the story was true, which led to his press release that launched the scandal. From there, the agents were immediately trotted out to be this week’s target of American outrage and scorn, even though the real culprits were two clueless graduate students posing as Secret Service agents as part of a sex tourism fantasy.

The Great Napkin Conundrum

Legendary Greek mathematician Pythagoras once said that choices are the hinges of destiny. As such, a wise man takes no choice too lightly and must consider the foreseen and unforeseen implications of his every action. Certainly, in the heat of the moment, it is easy to flippantly fall into a seemingly innocuous course of behavior, but we all know what it is like to live with the deep, burning regret of a crucial missed opportunity.

It is with this heavy heart that I face one of the more vexing and morally ambiguous dilemmas of my years. You see, I fancy myself a frugal man, an adherent to the maxim that a penny saved is a penny earned, yet I seek not to let that penny make me pound foolish. Perhaps these weighty philosophical questions will strike a truer chord when I indulge in you the details of my pressing ontological quandary.

I will begin my recounting with today’s excursion for a midday meal, thereby sparing you the gory details of decades of formative minutiae reaching as far back as the proverbial butterfly flapping its wings in Asia. I ventured from my place of work to the haven of fine Mexican-American cuisine known as Chipotle. Seeing as this establishment’s fare tends to squish and squirt in unexpected directions as it is consumed, I grabbed not a napkin, but a stack of napkins. Dark colored clothing or no, one cannot be too careful when it comes to noontime stains, unless he keeps spare dress shirts in his desk drawers, thereby needlessly evoking suspicion of infidelity from the womenfolk.

Due to some combination of divine intervention and unexpectedly good karma, I was able to avoid having to use the entire pile of napkins I earlier retrieved. Instead, I used precisely three napkins- one to guard my lap from the aforementioned squishes and squirts, one to wipe my mouth at the conclusion of the meal, and one to serve as a buffer between my fork and the uncouth tabletop sullied by my predecessors. More to the point, the remaining napkins in the stack numbered near a dozen, which I believe I was reasonably entitled to keep by the implied social contract between the establishment and myself.

Herein lies the problem. When resources are scarce, value spikes. In the days before my fortuitous acquisition of these napkins, I had mentally noted a need for additional napkins in the desk in my office as well as my car. I could not help but think that I would come to rue whichever choice I made. It felt as though I was being asked which of two children I would like to slaughter.

But if only the question was resolved so simply! The napkins in my desk serve a monumentally vital function to my day to day activities. Not only do I need one to serve as a coaster to prevent a daily coffee ring stain on the desk, I also need to employ a napkin as a makeshift plate on those days that I am required to eat at my desk. I earlier lamented the filth left behind on my restaurant table by the unclean masses; I regret to add that my own office hygiene leaves much the same to be desired. Food and paper establish the first layer of grime, and it is compounded every time I spray compressed air into my keyboard, leaving a veritable plague of dust and crumbs that cannot be wiped away so easily. Am I to eat from this cesspool? Perhaps, but only if my Freudian death drive has shifted into high gear.

On one hand, napkins are extremely important to have on hand in a motor vehicle. From surprise spills to congested sinuses, they can come in extremely handy in a variety of circumstances. What’s more, the bar for replacement products is extremely low, making the napkin a much better option than the next best alternative. Without a napkin in a car, how is one to clean up drops of coffee that cascade down the passenger seat after an unexpected speed bump? What of condensation on the inside of the windshield that the wiper blades cannot reach? And I defy you to tell me what good an old parking receipt will do in cases of a bloody nose. With those facts alone, the car makes a strong case to be the terminal destination of my napkins. I can only relay the sheer horror of the past few days when I have reached into the seatback pocket for a napkin, only to find a few dirty, balled-up wastes that ought to have been properly disposed of long before.

[LEFT: If only I could return to that more innocent time when a napkin was a simple and useful implement as the one pictured here.]

It is worth noting that the “backup plan” in the office is much more palatable than the car cataclysm. In fact, a paper towel dispenser resides in the office kitchen as little as thirty feet from where I sit. But that begs the question of frequency. I certainly will need to walk to that kitchen several times each day when I need a napkin for one purpose or another, whereas the car will only require a napkin in unique and infrequent occurrences. If my daily commute was longer, that would further complicate the issue, as if the conundrum was not already verging on unsolvable without needless hypotheticals thrown into the calculation!

So I sit. I sit pensively. I sit pensively, so moribund and hopeless that my questions expand from cleanliness and convenience to being and nothingness. It is clear that this question will not answer itself, and it will extract a great price from its answerer. It seems as though the only means of sating this deep emptiness inside me is with a purely temporal and aesthetic good, unyoked from the burden of philosophical self-justification. Maybe what I need is a shock to the system, something to remove me from this infinite loop of weight and counterweight. Maybe what I need is simply a snack, but of course, that is going to require me to find a napkin.

Unabashed Disdain for Whitney Houston Temporarily Replaced by Faux-Reverence

By Gerald Holgerson

DALLAS- Whitney Houston, long regarded as one of the most talented but troubled musicians of the last half-century, experienced an unprecedented and unexpected spike in her popularity over the weekend. Industry experts, while shocked, were happy to see the diva getting her due, but this reporter remains skeptical as to why the world suddenly decided to sweep her drug problems under the rug to shower her with adoration.

Houston’s resurgence was especially prominent in social media, where the usual mocking and ridicule gave way to plaudits about her wonderful career. In recent weeks, data tracking services indicated that over 93% of references to Whitney Houston were either links to articles about her drug addiction or usage of her name in a metaphorical sense (ex: “The price of these blueberries is higher than Whitney Houston. LOL”). Over the weekend, these references were crowded out almost exclusively by plaudits about her wonderful voice and her positive influence on her fans’ lives. She was also mentioned as a “motivation” more than 400,000 times in 2 days on Facebook, presumably meaning something other than motivation to become a crack head.

[RIGHT: I don't care what anyone says, Whitney. This is how I choose to always remember you.]

Without releasing any new music or performing at any events, Houston also saw her popularity rise in individuals’ rankings of their favorite musicians. While many pop music fans had rated her as one of their five or ten favorites from the 80s and early 90s, Houston seized the number one spot on innumerable lists over the weekend. For example, Carrie Steenen of Kenosha, Wisconsin tweeted “Whitney I luv U. U were my 1st tape as a kid. U R my Fav!!” In the past three weeks, Steenen had also listed Bruno Mars, Madonna, and Jennifer Hudson as her favorite musician, but had made no reference to Houston.

Even the producers of the Grammys worked Houston into their show on Sunday night. The producers had to be especially careful to plan around the Houston powder keg in the wake of the Super Bowl Halftime Show fiasco in which M.I.A. offended no one by pointlessly flipping off the camera. As such, the Grammys producers agreed to respond to the popular outcry in favor of Houston by including several references and tributes to her throughout the show, but they did so only after receiving assurances that she would not personally be in attendance. The producers made this move because they feared that if Houston was shown briefly on camera, there was at least a 50/50 chance that she would be snorting or free basing cocaine, which would earn the network a hefty fine.

Possibly the most startling development in the nation’s sudden love affair with Whitney Houston has been the kid-glove treatment given by morning radio hosts. These hosts, who are normally known for being slightly zany and for gently pushing the boundaries of the PG ratings, have spoken in reverential tones about Houston. Few have even made the obvious jokes about her drug addiction, and if there is one thing radio morning hosts are known for, it is making obvious jokes. More on this story as it develops.

UPDATE: This just in- apparently, Whitney Houston is dead. That sort of explains why everyone was gushing over her for the last three days. I take full responsibility for printing this article not knowing that she was dead, although that still doesn’t explain why everyone is suddenly in love with her. If people had been this nice to her when she was alive instead of harassing her and rumor-mongering about her, maybe she would not have become addicted to drugs and died.

Susan G. Komen vs. Planned Parenthood: Who Should I Support?

A public fight has broken out over the last week between Susan G. Komen, a charity dedicated to preventing and curing breast cancer, and Planned Parenthood, a nationwide family planning organization. The throwdown between two popular charities has left many supporters conflicted over which organization they should support. Today, I will help provide some guidance through the complex ins and outs of the feud so you can better decide for yourself.

First, men are lucky that they do not need to have an opinion on the subject. Since Susan G. Komen is dedicated to curing breast cancer and Planned Parenthood gives abortions, men can simply shrug and say that they do not care whenever the topic is brought up. In all likelihood, women will indignantly insist that these issues affect men, too, and that such indifference is insulting and sexist. Obviously, they are wrong and are probably either on their period or suffering from a bout of hysteria. Men: you can stop reading right now, unless you ever want to get laid again.

[RIGHT: What I imagine a fight between employees at Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood may well look like.]

For those of you who want to get to know the issues, it is important to understand why Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood are fighting. The story starts with a few rich donors to Susan G. Komen who paid a Congressman to open an investigation into whether Planned Parenthood failed to report cases of possible sexual abuse against minors for whom its doctors were caring. If you are thinking that it sounds illegal to pay a Congressman to open a Congressional investigation for self-serving purposes, then apparently you have never heard of a little Supreme Court case called Citizens United that makes it illegal to tell rich people not to do things. Anyway, when Planned Parenthood objected to the investigation as unwarranted and discriminatory, Susan G. Komen’s rich pro-life backers pressured the organization to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood.

At least that’s the public story. Don’t rule out the possibility that this controversy was manufactured to get more sympathetic press for Planned Parenthood. They have certainly received much more money in private donations in the last week than they lost in the withheld grant from Susan G. Komen. If the pro-life donors really wanted to defund Planned Parenthood, it probably would have been wiser to do so in a way that did not massively increase donations to the organization.

If the public façade of the conflict is to be believed, then it might be constructive to consider what both of these organizations do for society. Susan G. Komen raises millions of dollars every year to cure breast cancer. To achieve that goal, the organization has also trademarked the color pink and the “Race for the Cure” name, and has paid high-level executives exorbitant salaries. While these aggressive business practices may sound de rigueur for a successful business, Susan G. Komen is not actually successful. Contrary to popular belief, they have NOT cured cancer and have in fact succeeded only in making themselves rich. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, has cured all sorts of varied diseases, from gonorrhea to chlamydia to syphilis. They have even had some success preventing down syndrome through early detection and aggressive treatment protocols.

Some of Susan G. Komen’s most ardent supporters have pointed out that the organization remains committed to helping the American economy stay vibrant. While they say that Planned Parenthood stifles the growth of the American workforce, Susan G. Komen provides financial support for job creators, particularly those in the straightened-out wire hanger manufacturing industry.

The most important difference between the two organizations may not be operational, but relational. It has become increasingly clear over the last week that Susan G. Komen, for all of the unblinking goodwill it has accumulated over decades, is a slow moving behemoth, a relic institution of a bygone age. In other words, the organization is less viable because it does not have the ability to manipulate social media to support its actions. Clearly, the greatest sin had nothing to do with reallocating grant money, and everything to do with hiring a PR firm that could not convey dogmatic bits of social control in 140 characters.

In conclusion, the safest way to go is to post a link to an article condemning Susan G. Komen on Facebook with a snarky comment about how they bend to the whims of rich donors. Anything less risks social ostracization, so steer clear.

Scientific Rounding Error Responsible for Inaccurate Calendar, Most Climate Change

By Mauricio Luna

OSLO- Shortly after the world celebrated the 2012 New Year, scientists put a damper on the celebration by announcing that an age-old rounding error is responsible for accumulated inaccuracies in the world’s predominant calendar system. Scientists will adjust for the error by skipping the calendar ahead several weeks to February 16th on Thursday in order to restore the calendar to its proper calibration.

The calendar problem dates back to the late 16th century, when Pope Gregory XIII, a well-documented egomaniac and forerunner to modern reality television, adopted the Gregorian calendar to correct supposed flaws in the preceding Julian calendar, which came to prominence under Julius Caesar. At the time, it was said that the Julian calendar’s presumption that a revolution around the sun took exactly 365.25 days was off by 11 minutes, but the proclamation was panned on Twitter and by bloggers even at the time. Unsurprisingly, 16th Century technology and the Catholic Church’s abysmal scientific record combined to adjust the calendar in the wrong direction and by less than half of the appropriate length of time. The mistake is said to be the product of a rushed timeframe imposed by the Pope in order to insure his name would be attached to the world’s preeminent calendar. As a result, time has shifted gradually over the course of almost 500 years to the point where we are now more than 30 days off of the proper place in Earth’s revolution around the sun.

[BELOW: Pope Gregory XIII often wondered if he was the only one who gave a fuck about the calendar rules.]

The problem was first noticed by climatologists who noticed that the last few years’ weather patterns have been extremely out of line with history, even by Al Gore’s standards. Alfonse Santos of the Spanish think tank Climaté Muy Caliente first posed the idea that the calendar was incorrect when he noticed that entire seasons seemed to be shifting in different parts of the world. In fact, the newly identified flaw is said to be responsible for most of what was thought to be climate change throughout the world. What were previously thought to be unseasonably warm winters in parts of the world were literally unseasonably: they were actually average springs. As a result, the scientists say that nobody has to worry about carbon emissions, gas mileage, recycling, or landfills ever again. The world is now free to go back to making fun of environmentalists for being pussies who sob uncontrollably whenever a dolphin stupidly rams its nose into a plastic soda can ring.

Scientists acknowledged that moving the calendar ahead to February 16th would create some difficult complications since roughly 10% of the year would immediately vanish into thin air, but they proposed what they felt were workable solutions to those issues. First, they asserted that Mitt Romney would be declared the winner of the Republican Primaries that would disappear into the time shift. Most Americans eagerly accepted this bland result over the interminable and pointless melodrama of even more Republican debates and inconclusive primaries.

In sports, the scientists proposed that the Pittsburgh Steelers would be named Super Bowl Champions even though the entire NFL playoffs would be obliterated. Although the Steelers were only the number five seed in the AFC playoffs, the scientists declared them winners because they already have several nondescript championships that most fans don’t remember, and adding one more to the tally would seemingly create few problems. Skipping the playoffs would have the added benefit of saving Americans from sitting through an average of 214 hours of beer and truck commercials per person, and would save those same beer and truck companies enough in marketing expenses to stop outsourcing jobs. In related news, the plan is to tell all of the NASCAR fans that Kurt Busch won the Daytona 500 and they all got too drunk to remember what happened.

While skipping the next six weeks has some drawbacks, the scientists are confident that they will be able to convince the world that it is ultimately a good idea. First, they have pointed out that almost everyone in the world is in massive debt, and the jump forward would be six weeks in which mortgages, credit card bills, and student loans would not be accruing any interest. For those who remain unconvinced, the scientists have made an analogy to the start of daylight savings time. “Springing forward,” as it is often called, allows people to stay up an extra hour later at night, so the scientists have told people to think of jumping six weeks into the future as a really large spring forward.